U.S. Army Ground Combat Vehicle study (groggy)

[John Kettler]

This seemed the best place to post a Congressional Budget Office, not Army, study link I found. It has a great deal of info pertaining to modern warfare, threats, AFV designs, engagement geometries and more.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-06-2012-Ground_Combat_Vehicles.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I'm now all nostalgic for my old 'Military Technology' magazine subscription. The government must be losing their touch, though. That figure 1-3 has got to be the worst excuse for a chart I've ever seen!

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

A truly novel and awful chart. Worse than the mushroom cloud strategic balance charts the Pentagon was reduced to using in order make President Reagan understand what was being said.

I remember when a carpet graph was impressive, but nothing ever topped this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Minard.png

One of these days I'll get Edward Tofte's books.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Ho ho, I was going to say the only time I ever saw a chart like that was tracing the collapse of Napoleon's army as he retreated from Russia - oh, that's exactly what that chart is of!

[JMFC]

Good report. That was a good find. I was not aware that Israelis, Germans and Russians used converted tank chassis. Reminds me of a current BAE project (the makers of the Bradley). They are trying to sell the Army a converted Bradley medical vehicle to replace the outdated and slow M113s. It's relatively cheap, uses the same parts as the M2, and can keep with the Bradleys too. Consensus though is the Army is not interested as we wait years for this next vehicle that's still in the concept stage.

I like that they hinted at keeping the 25mm Bushmaster. That thing is a game changer. Not sure if it is feasible with a two man crew that is the goal of the new vehicle.